From: pgr@ecs.ox.ac.uk (Partially Grown Rhododendron) Subject: Re: DOS/MS Windows compatibility for Free Software Date: 7 Jun 1992 03:20:32 GMT
In <petrilli.707809028@hal>, Chris Petrilli <petrilli@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
writes:
> rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes:
> >I have heard about a program that would allow MS DOS to to be run under
> >Linux under 8086 emulation mode. I've also head some rumors about a free
> >DOS 2.1 clone.
> I have to ask WHY?
Perhaps because somebody has bought a lot of software for DOS and
doesn't want to throw it away? Perhaps because Unix versions of the
software don't exist? There are an awful lot of people with lots of
money already spent on software that runs under DOS; I think it is quite
reasonable to hope that somebody will write something that will allow
them to run it under a (superior :-)) Unix OS.
> >My own sense is that there is a window of opportunity right now for
> >free software. Microsoft is quite a ways from getting their "real" OS-
> >Windows NT to market.
> How is this an opporunity for FREE software? So far you've proposed
> something that will go farthest to benefit commercial users.
No, it will go a long way to convince people who have shelled out a few
hundred $'s on commercial software that they can afford to move to free
software (an OS). `Afford' in the sense that they won't have to buy
completely new software and possibly learn how to use it. i.e., many
people who would not otherwise have moved to using free software will be
able to do so without fear of obseleting their existing programs; this
will cause an increase in the numbers of users of free software, and
that can only be good for everybody.
> >There are a few things that could, I think dramatically expand the installed
> >base of the free software users, now that Linux is becoming more widely
> >available:
> I believe you're proposing people use FREE software to run commercial
> software. As I think you'll find in the GNU manifesto, that is NOT what
> the FSF is about.
I don't remember reading that the GNU manifesto is trying to prevent
people's freedom of choice. People already own a lot of commercial
software. It is patently absurd to suggest that they should throw the
lot out just so that some ideal principal can be upheld -- personally I
support the FSF's goals, but I am also a realist.
[...bits deleted...]
> This would also require implementing the brain-dead MSDOS file system, and
> all of the Mac window calls. I don't think that is really the most
> constructive of projects. You're talking about only slowing the transition.
No, he is talking about *easing* the transition. The number of people
in the world who can afford to throw away the entire of their existing
system and start again from scratch is quite small...
> >4) We need to develop more snazzy software that appeals to end-users. In
> > particular we need some genius out there to develop a free product which
> > empowers end users in the same way that products like Hypercard have.
> I do agree wholeheartedly with you here. HOWEVER, I think continuing to
> encourage the use of propreitary interfaces is the WRONG way to do it.
I think we all agree with (4). On pragmatic grounds, I tend to agree
with Randy Burns more than Chris Petrilli. On idealistic grounds it's
the other way round. People need to be encouraged and coaxed in to
using free software (and free OS's); this will be nigh on impossible
unless that transition is eased by allowing their existing system to be
in some way incorporated. I can visualise the possibility of pursuading
a boss to allow a person to change the OS on his PC's to a free Unix
clone ONLY if the boss knows that the machines will run the software
that has already been bought for the machines. It will then be
possible to introduce other free software onto those systems, and
eventually *may* be possible to replace the commercial software.
pihl